In Spuybroek’s description the “sympathy of things” occurs when a creature synchronizes its own behavior with that of another in such a way, that it intuitively incorporates the movements of another self. It’s the identification of the physical feeling in such a way, that the ‘self’ dissolves into the living awareness of the other. To clarify this: think of people dancing with each other, or a leopard chasing a deer. But the same happens when a cook is whipping cream, or a blacksmith forging a hinge, or an artist carving wood. Actually, in Spuybroek's vision all things with power and strength, including waves, wind, clouds and mountains, design or shape each other by the same mutual identification.

Spuybroek may say that writing is more precise than building, and I have to admit that his ideas are fascinating, but when I read the phrases above, I’d rather stop verbalizing and demonstrate the reality of their meaning by producing an ‘abstract’ sculpture in stone. That would certainly consume more time but might result in a far more tangible and concrete illustration of what he means. And it would prove that  the same ‘sympathy’ plays exactly the same role in what Spuybroek calls despicable modernism. I'm a strong supporter of  the sympathy-story, but still don't see it as a reason for war between different streams of art. Could it be that art is mixed up with architecture here?